Just to remind you, you're the one that brought up my happiness in relation to anything here, not me yours...
-Matt
Upvote 0
Standardized Moderator Testing (free), Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Firewalker
- Start date
Just to remind you, you're the one that brought up my happiness in relation to anything here, not me yours...
-Matt
@WobblyHand so I guess we will need some criteria to test?
If you were going to do these tests, what would be your criteria. What things would you want to document?
If you were going to do these tests, what would be your criteria. What things would you want to document?
Upvote 0
I do not know if there's room to improve in a passive design or not. It might be that without relaxing a constraint, the problem is intractable.
That being said, and in my engineering experience, it is often in examining constraints that one can find a few items that formerly were constraints - and really don't have to be. It's called looking at the problem differently. That is where I'd think there could be some exploration. With some real simulation tools, it is possible to examine things which might be difficult to do physically, (or analytically) but can give insight. That insight can be exploited to go further.
Wipes are interesting, but they are a wear item, no matter how actuated, pneumatically or electronically. Suppose it is possible to improve them, but improving a passive device may be a better value. Won't know until I take a dive into CFD.
Upvote 0
Think it would be hard to maintain accuracy. But it doesn't actually need to be a wipe. It could be a fast shutter instead. But that's just me speculating off the top of my head.
Upvote 0
Well, I am already finding the "no construction details" constraint encumbering. We need more clarification on that.
I'd rather identify physical and performance criteria to measure in test scenarios so that we can design a standard test. Clearly that does not violate the new guidance.
Upvote 0
Nothing wrong with remaining hopeful that there within a systems design, is a mystery to be solved, a puzzle piece yet to claim its destination, an unlit corner within a frequently visited room filled with chaos waiting for that hopes glimmer to reveal its secrets.
I've seen zero evidence to compel changing my current belief that such designs are near their pinnacle. Heck if STO had it his way, we'd all be rocking his moderators and everything else would be in the bin, because according to his tests his designs are the new pinnacle, that same story has been spun a dozen other times here and there....yet here we are, still discussing what could be the next greatest, opposed to what is...and by margins large enough to leave any doubt at the door step.
-Matt
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Got to think about it some. Really, I think you have made a pretty decent start at it. Here's some general stuff.
1) Documented test range geometry
2) Eliminate signal clipping - the signal we are interested in is short duration, so we shouldn't lose it. You and I have gone back and forth on this, but if you want things to be totally reproducible, (including others independently) think this should be done. Think you have made great strides on this.
3) Document instrumentation used, part numbers, software
I'll think about details tonight, stuff like moderator exterior dimensions, platform, fpe, etc.
Upvote 0
Hard to talk about optimizing design without talking about technical details. Clarification would be helpful.
Testing seems to be allowed, so size, weight, (volume), cost, spectral characteristics, acoustic energy are some criteria. Feel free to modify/discuss. Ideally we'd have calibrated microphones, but now we are talking a different league. Still, if we know the mic characteristics, we should state it.
Upvote 0
Dagum Matt... It's almost like you have some sort of fixation on STO and whether or not we should be allowed to even discuss moderators at all?
Upvote 0
Gain and attenuation settings for the test - you know, like we were in a science or engineering lab, and we had to write it down. Not trying to make extra work, just thinking of variables that people often forget to document.
Upvote 0
I suppose it might be worth it to invest in a calibrated microphone. I'd really like to set up a trigger like your friend over on GTA has done. That would go a long way towards isolating the data we really want.
Upvote 0
Absolutely. Regarding STO, a lot of what he did was really interesting. I must have been away from the forum when he was posting here. I have read all of his posts on his web site. His engineering is pretty good given the constraints in his environment. I expect the best I will be able to hope for is about the same. Ill start looking at microphones. I think two is probably as many as I want to be forced to work with. If you know of any which are good value for the money link them to me via PM.
I can set up the range in a five acre field and test over grass with no reflectors within a couple hundred ms. (37.717, -76.633). I'll be cutting that grass all summer. That should suffice for "anechoic" at least well enough for the purpose. I have often wished I could set up a bench rest or FT range on that property. Maybe some day.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I'd like to see that moderator. Who made it? What rifle did you test it on?I agree entirely with this post and even if there is a moderator that could reduce the report to zero you will never be able to reduce the whizz of the projectile. While out hunting with my friends all of whom have really quiet guns, I can hear every shot they make from 100 yards away, from the pellet flying through the air and hitting home.
Here is a test for any moderator, stick a piece of masking tape over the endcap and fire a pellet through it (a good way to test for concentricity) if you can hear the paper tear, you have a quiet moderator
Bb
Upvote 0
I shoot sub 12 with RAW/ Rapids that have modified internals to improve shot count and consistency, the action noise is super quiet. a .177 my moderators will only have an exit hole on the endcap of 5mm, while a .20 only 5.5mm. I use masking tape to ensure concentricity and can definitely hear the paper tear.
Typically they are made from carbon 165mmx32mm with 3 baffles 4 cages (smallest, medium, small, largest) wrapped in felt.
Bb
Upvote 0
Good on ya! How much does that rifle cost?
Sub-12 fpe... Wouldn't that fall into the category of "guns that are already quiet"?
I'm thinking literally anything including a childs baloon could make that thing sound weally weally quiet...
but yeah I guess a moderator the same size as the one on my HW110 Weirauch would probably be as quiet as you suggest... if I tuned it to 600 fps or so...
Upvote 0
Danger! Danger! Will Robbins... we may not speak of construction details. "Clever fellow" has seen to that.
HINT: Ask in the compressor forum. Nobody will take issue with it there.
Last edited:
Upvote 0